Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 10 2005 : 11:35AM
In the Department of Justice’s latest effort to protect the children, they have declared every person who posts an image on the internet a “producer.” That means every one of you who participates in a message forum or writes a blog or has a personal website. We are all producers. And if we choose to post an image that could be construed as containing a sex act (including masturbation or possibly even an erect penis) we must be able to prove that the people in the picture were adults at the time it was taken.
Producers, the one who actually produced the sexually explicit image, have been required to maintain model records proving age since 1988. This month the Dept. of Justice decided that anyone who posts that image on the internet should also maintain these records. While it is unclear how this protects the children, it is very clear how difficult this law makes it to run an adult internet business. The Dept. of Justice has found an easy way to prosecute anyone distributing pornography via the internet and to curtail the adult internet business in the U.S.
The changes to the 2257 record keeping laws are vague enough to require legal advice and cumbersome enough to put small companies out of business. Not only must every producer maintain these model records in a specific filing fashion, but they must publish their business address and have these records available anytime for inspection during business hours. This precludes home businesses from continuing to function unless they want their home address posted on the web. This precludes part-time businesses from operating unless they report the exact hours they will be working to the government, and those hours total 20 per week.
At Adult DVD Talk we have therefore made the decision to remove every sexually explicit image from our site. We do not have the resources to maintain the records for 50,000 movies nor do we wish to open our home to the Dept of Justice for inspections. We have joined the Free Speech Coalition who is preparing a legal challenge. If you would like to donate to the cause you can do so through their website at freespeechcoalition.com.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 10 2005 : 8:40PM
because most everyone is good about following our image policy. anyone who posts an avatar that does not comply will see their account deactivated. we will remove the option if it becomes a problem.
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Jun 10 2005 : 8:45PM
It's an automated process to post it now, but if it doesn't follow the guidelines it will quickly be removed.
I do need to change the avatar process. At least a mechanism to email the avatar to admins/moderators every time a new one is posted.
The serious loophole in the current system is that someone who hasn't posted in a long time could change/add an avatar. The new avatar would be visible in all of their old posts but the change might not be noticed unless someone actively reviews old threads.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Jun 11 2005 : 5:41PM
Clarification:
I do remember reading somewhere (on adt) that a link to another site's page of a sexual scene is considered within the law, because the other site is the producer and adt does not have to file the records. Correct me if I am wrong.
Drew at one point had a great phrase for this; that it didn't really matter where the picture resided, the secondary producer was whoever caused the picture to appear on a particular web page... I could be wrong
I understand it this way as well but my interpretion is different. When I read the new rules they seem to rely heavily on editorial responsibility. I have no editorial control for what appears on a page I link to.
I could place a link to a gardening page today and later the domain expires and someone replaces it with a porn site. It's unrealistic to assume that every website in existence will need to monitor their outbound links to be sure they don't link to porn.
BTW, the link to another site doesn't cause the picture to appear. The HTML code in the other site does so.
Now if someone is linking directly to an image stored on another server there might be a problem. i.e. links to http://somedomain.com/pornimage.jpg might be looked at differently than links to http://soemdomain.com/ponpage.html.
There are a bunch of different opinions flying around from lawyers on the linking issue. Some say text links could require documentation while others say text links do not require documentation. If we can't link to other sites using text then we will simply pull the plug on ADT, move to Montana and start farming dental floss.
I was thinking more along the lines of calling the image from another server and opening it up in a separate window, which is how I read RonK's comment.
I don't get the distinction. Are you talking about someone doing a href=http://somedomain.com/someimagename.jpg target="_new"? In my comments above I indicate that this may indeed be a problem.
Doing a href=http://somedomain.com/someimagename.html target="_new" should be OK because it's the HTML of the page linked to that loads the image.
Your first html snippet is what I was referring to, and I think we're thrashing even though we agree. I understand your thinking on the second snippet, but I didn't read RonK's comment that way.
"Pygmy Ponies", or more correctly, "Pygmy Pony" is a reference to the Frank Zappa song about moving to Montana to become a dental floss tycoon. There's a part of the lyric where he describes the dental floss ranch to be 3 acres long and 6 inches wide, and he'd ride across his land on a pygmy pony.
So for now it is the same as it has been? I ask because I tend to change mine every couple of weeks to a different landscape of a place that I've visited. If it causing you extra work to go in & check them out then I'll stop doing so.
I now receive an email every time someone changes their avatar. The email contains the user's name and the new image. If the new image isn't kosher I can quickly remove it.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 13 2005 : 2:45PM
It would be very helpful if people would write letters to the editor, post information on non-porn forums, and write to your representatives. This is not just an issue of free speech. This is an obliteration of the Fourth Amendment. The Dept. of Justice can send representatives to any "producers" home and "inspect records" (ie conduct a search) without a warrant. Please spread the word. The porn industry should not be fighting this alone. These rules leave us all vulnerable to unreasonable searches. Again, please spread the word. I will write up some sample letters if that would help.
I'm wondering if the ACLU would be a place to look also?
This may very well tie in with their work to undo the "Patriot Act" monstrousity. The Bush Administration continues to peel away personal freedoms and Constitutional rights on many different fronts. Tyrants always begin by attacking groups -- like the porn industry and consumers -- who are politically popular or advantageous to their own political base first. The ACLU frequently defends the "unpopular" in order to protect the Constitutional rights of all Americans.
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
If everyone just don't give a fuck about this new law, like graffitti artist, it will be worthless. So to me removing pictures is a big mistake - it will show the government how they can fuck people with ease....
Steph wrote:Exactly. You know, I don't have any personal stake in whether people can link to photos, but this new 2257 thing infuriated me more than I could have imagined. The Patriot Act was bad enough, who'd have thunk they could come up with so many more ways to erode everybody's rights while they sleep. Everything under the guise of attacking the easy targets - porn, terrorists, whatever. As if.
Civil disobedience would be worthwhile if you could get a huge groundswell of support from people joining together to fight this, but good luck with that, given the lukewarm resistance to the Patriot Act and the actual re-election of Bush.
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 13 2005 : 6:50PM
Lindi, thank you. I will write some sample letters. I have been contacting writers for various publications encouraging them to tackle this story. It's big news yet no one is paying attention.
BigBob, the problem with the ACLU is that they want you to contact your local office. This is a federal issue. But I will contact my local office.
You may want to read the regulations again. The "inspect records" section clearly states they can have a law enforcement officer with them and the "plain view" exception (according to DOJ) applies.
Meaning they can come in and inspect your records and then look for anything else you might have that is illegal even if it has nothing to do with the records search and arrest you without a search warrent.
Again have I mentioned how much I love this country.
This is pretty much exactly what Steph said above.
[Link]
dvddude Deactivated User
45 Posts 3/05
Posted - Jun 13 2005 : 11:00PM
So what's going to happen to all the websites that sell or rent porn? Can they still rent and sell the product if they don't keep records? Or does this just simply apply to having boxcovers on their website?
Fear is a powerful weapon . In the past it's been described as the blind spot of democracy .
As a non-American perhaps I shouldn't comment , but here goes anyway ... There are plenty of sites who are continuing to flout these laws , and show no sign of even being aware of them . In the US is ignorance of a new law accepted as a legal defense ? I know it isn't in Britain .
Presumably these laws were put in place for a reason , which means it's highly likely they will be used . At that point won't any potential conviction be appealed to the Supreme Court on the grounds of 4th Amendment rights ? I'd guess that will be the time when the various media organisations will start getting interested in the story . Many people may have a problem with lewd material , but I wonder if they think it's worth punishing others with such draconian measures . It could prove a highly emotive issue , and as we all know the news channels use emotion as their fuel .
Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99
Posted - Jun 14 2005 : 12:13PM
Baby - avatars should be r-rated, as the rules here have always stated. Dick sucking, even if a comic, is not r-rated. Please don't make it so we have to remove the avatar option completely.
Your account has been deactivated. I don't have time to play remove the avatar all day.
Edited by - Steph on 6/14/2005 12:13:59 PM
[Link]
dvddude Deactivated User
45 Posts 3/05
Posted - Jun 14 2005 : 6:06PM
So I just got done reading about 2257 at http://my .execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm . If I read this correctly, this means everyone that sells or distributes adult material has to keep records as well. Am I correct with my translation? If this is true, then a bunch of adult dvd retailers and rentailers are going to disappear. Can some tell me if I read this correctly. Thanks
Almost correct. Mere distribution does not require records. If you post a picture of a box cover on the internet then teh retailer might need records for that item. (The rules are vague.) If the box cover that's posted to a web page depicts a sex act then the retailer absolutely needs records.
You can sell without records, just don't post a picture of what you're trying to sell on the internet. How can Internet retailers expect to sell much product without box covers? Good question.
The rules absolutely suck in this regard. A brock and mortar retailer doesn't need records, they fall into the "mere distribution" category. An internet retailer that posts box covers to their website is a secondary producer and needs to have records.
[Link]
dvddude Deactivated User
45 Posts 3/05
Posted - Jun 14 2005 : 9:41PM
Ok. I thought that everyone that sells or rents adult material needs to keep records. So for internet sites like xrentdvd.com, it is not clear if they need to keep records? If the boxcover is say of a girl in a bikini, it's not ok? I don't understand why if a internet retailer puts a non nude or non sexual explicit covers they will still have to keep records. This is ridiculous.
As the rules are currently written then a "sane" person would tell you that a softcore version of an adult movie boxcover should be able to be posted without documentation. However, that is an "interpretation" of the new rules and you really won't know for certain until someone tests the theory in court.
Posted - Jun 10 2005 : 11:35AM
